Hacker News Reader

Comment by makecheck | Hacker News Reader

It would be a lot easier for executives to defend massive salaries if they weren’t also making money hand over fist when they fail spectacularly. What’s worse is that it seems like there are an awful lot of executives that don’t execute perfectly.

While I don’t personally believe there is any job in the world worth one hundred million or more per year (I mean, these people aren’t even physically in harm’s way!!!), why on earth aren’t companies making sure that money swings far in the other direction too? If you want a chance at $100M a year, the company should be able to FINE you millions and millions of dollars when you make costly mistakes, for example.

View on HN

That all sounds great, in theory, and sounds super fair. But how do you attract executive talent without large salaries and golden parachutes?

When one person's choices can make the difference between bankruptcy and having surging profits, how should we compensate them? I do think our distribution is a bit top heavy, but I think of it ethically, not pragmatically or fiscally. Short of executives collectively deciding against their own financial interests, or regulators choosing for everyone (and the economy being exposed to regulatory capture), I don't see what you're proposing.

And physical danger is like physical labor. It's not intrinsically tied to the value society places on that work. Personally I don't think skydiving instructors should be paid more than high school teachers.

The "large salaries and golden parachutes are necessary to attract top-notch talent" is just typical b.s to justify awarding even more compensation within the boys (and girls) club. In reality, you could easily find at least several equally qualified executives to fill the position.

How many have you been able to find and attract?

Anyone who says "you could easily", wrt business, obviously is either a business genius unlike the rest of us, or has never tried.

Trust me, finding top notch talent that you're willing to trust with the direction of your company is probably harder than finding a spouse.

Easy, have gov't set a limit, tieing max CEO pay to median wages. CEO's can't earn more than 400x avg worker, including bonuses.

Then it's not about the company setting their pay rate, they can set their own if they can justify raising the median salaries. Win/Win.

Now what about companies that have an uneven number of employees in other countries? Or where they're distributed throughout the US, and costs of living are quite varied?

What median should they be tied to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com